Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Next Chapter

blog.aereo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 198 posts

Re: The Next Chapter

#181

Post by apaprocki »

psychometry wrote: post #154
untog wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because cable companies pay broadcast companies to redistribute broadcast content - it's a major source of income for the broadcast companies. The cable companies said that if Aereo were allowed to get away with what they were doing then they'd do the same thing themselves.

OK, but do you understand that cable companies primarily provide cable channels as their service? You're comparing apples to oranges.

Aereo's model wasn't limited to OTA. It wasn't publicized a lot, but Bloomberg TV was the first non-OTA channel to stream over Aereo.

http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB100014241278873239815045781...

Re: The Next Chapter

#182

Post by kevincennis »

harryh wrote: post #162
kevincennis wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SCOTUS never really addressed this. The majority opinion was basically just a bunch of vague hand-waving that amounted to "if it looks like a duck...". That was one of the most frustrating things for me when the decision came out. Obviously we all understood that we might lose, but to have a decision handed down that was so completely devoid of any sort of definitive logic or reasoning was really, really demoralizing…

Aereo argued that what they were actually doing in their datacenter mattered. American Broadcasting Companies argued that the equipment you were running was irrelevant and what mattered was the service you were selling (streaming unlicensed TV over the internet). I don't think the latter point is unreasonable. And I don't think your company thought it was unreasonable either (except when trying to win court cases). W…

I think the latter point absolutely is unreasonable.

That marketing tagline you pulled could just as easily have come from Sling (i.e. "Put an antenna in your house and hook it up to a Slingbox"). But nobody seems to think that would be a public performance.

By your logic, Aereo should have been legal if the website said "User-controlled, individually assigned remote antennas and DVRs in the cloud".

The way you market yourself has nothing to do with copyright law. You need to look at what's actually happening under the hood – not just base your decision on whatever the "user perception" is of the service.

Re: The Next Chapter

#183

Post by dragonwriter »

the_ancient wrote: post #180
dragonwriter wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you want a legal monpoly over your works, you should not be able to pick and choose which services can rebroadcast it. The ability to control who uses something is exactly what a legal monopoly over it is . Its like saying of personal property, "if you want a legal monopoly over your things, you shouldn't be able to pick and choose who can borrow them."

Hardly, there is no such thing as intellectual property. With property you have exclusive access over a physical item, with intellectual privilege the government is granting you the exclusive control over an idea, visual or audio representation of an idea, or some other non-physical concept. for example Copyright does not apply to a DVD it applies to the visual idea's and representation of those idea that happened to…

> Hardly, there is no such thing as intellectual property.

There absolutely is such a thing as intellectual property.

> With property you have exclusive access over a physical item

With property, you have exclusive rights with regard to something, but the exclusive rights may not be specifically to "access", and it may not be in a "physical item". Intangible personal property (which includes intellectual property, but also lots of other property rights in nonphysical things -- like securities, rights to legal action, etc.) is hardly a new thing.

> The government created this artificial privilege

Property is artificial, man-made, exclusive privilege with regard to something -- all of it is created through government, and all of it is enforced with threats of violence.

> It is in no way akin to property

Even your own description is exactly like every form of property.

Re: The Next Chapter

#184

Post by Malician »

res0nat0r wrote: post #149
icebraining wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're just repeating what was said; what is missing is a justification. You may believe it's self-evident that creation should confer absolute control, but it really isn't - especially after copies have been sold to others.

Why? Just because you deem it so? The creator gets to control the use of their product...because thats the law as it currently stands.

Only in copyright law does "The law is currently this" stand in as an argument for, "And, therefore, the law should exist in this form, or one even more stringent, for all eternity."

He is arguing the law should change, as it should. He advanced arguments, which you may dislike, for why it should. And you respond with, simply, "the law currently says this."

Re: The Next Chapter

#185

Post by res0nat0r »

Malician wrote: post #184
res0nat0r wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Just because you deem it so? The creator gets to control the use of their product...because thats the law as it currently stands.

Only in copyright law does "The law is currently this" stand in as an argument for, "And, therefore, the law should exist in this form, or one even more stringent, for all eternity." He is arguing the law should change, as it should. He advanced arguments, which you may dislike, for why it should. And you respond with, simply, "the law currently says this."

Great, but you wanting the law to change doesn't in fact mean you get to ignore the law as it exists today.

Re: The Next Chapter

#186

Post by icebraining »

res0nat0r wrote: post #185
Malician wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only in copyright law does "The law is currently this" stand in as an argument for, "And, therefore, the law should exist in this form, or one even more stringent, for all eternity." He is arguing the law should change, as it should. He advanced arguments, which you may dislike, for why it should. And you respond with, simply, "the law currently says this."

Great, but you wanting the law to change doesn't in fact mean you get to ignore the law as it exists today.

Who said anything about ignoring the law? You're arguing against a straw man.

Re: The Next Chapter

#187

Post by res0nat0r »

icebraining wrote: post #186
res0nat0r wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great, but you wanting the law to change doesn't in fact mean you get to ignore the law as it exists today.

Who said anything about ignoring the law? You're arguing against a straw man.

All of your posts pretty much talk about how you think "information wants to be free" (aka: free music, movies, games and other entertainment) so I don't see any strawman here.

Re: The Next Chapter

#188

Post by icebraining »

res0nat0r wrote: post #187
icebraining wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about ignoring the law? You're arguing against a straw man.

All of your posts pretty much talk about how you think "information wants to be free" (aka: free music, movies, games and other entertainment) so I don't see any strawman here.

Labeling people is easy, but it doesn't lead to fruitful discussion. You just end up talking past other people. If you wanted to discuss the propriety of abiding by the law, I'm sure there were more appropriate threads to do so.

Re: The Next Chapter

#189

Post by Malician »

res0nat0r wrote: post #187
icebraining wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about ignoring the law? You're arguing against a straw man.

All of your posts pretty much talk about how you think "information wants to be free" (aka: free music, movies, games and other entertainment) so I don't see any strawman here.

That justifies their allegation that you are using a straw man; it appears that you were replying to me but arguing against them.

Re: The Next Chapter

#190

Post by harryh »

kevincennis wrote: post #182
harryh wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aereo argued that what they were actually doing in their datacenter mattered. American Broadcasting Companies argued that the equipment you were running was irrelevant and what mattered was the service you were selling (streaming unlicensed TV over the internet). I don't think the latter point is unreasonable. And I don't think your company thought it was unreasonable either (except when trying to win court cases). W…

I think the latter point absolutely is unreasonable. That marketing tagline you pulled could just as easily have come from Sling (i.e. "Put an antenna in your house and hook it up to a Slingbox"). But nobody seems to think that would be a public performance. By your logic, Aereo should have been legal if the website said "User-controlled, individually assigned remote antennas and DVRs in the cloud". The way you marke…

You missed my point.

I didn't say that Aereo was legal or not based on its marketing, I said that there was a common cause to both Aereo's lack of legality and the marketing the company chose to sell the product.

Post reply on HN